13-03-2016, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2016, 08:17 PM by Albert Doyle.)
It is ignorant to not realize that even if Prayer Man were hypothetically on the first step down that the arc curve of the distance plane from Darnell's lens would transit close enough to him that he would still be technically even with Frazier. Instead of being slightly behind Frazier, if Prayer Man was on the first step down he would be around 6 inches forward of Frazier in relation to the distance plane. As Drew's trigonometry proved, a 5 foot depth separation would only create a .38 inch difference in height between Prayer Man and Frazier. At 6 inches it would only be .038 inches. This is such a minute difference that it would only create a negligible perspective differential and therefore have no affect on the obvious 6-7 inch height difference clearly seen in Darnell.
David Josephs is getting away with analysis murder here because his radical perspective shift claim between different lenses does not answer this better science. David's argument is basically that because such radical shifts can occur between different lenses that therefore they did occur. But that isn't how rational analysis logic works. We have shown that there are serious mitigating factors such as the obvious perspective quality seen by the naked eye in Darnell; as well as the predictable lens and lens setting of Darnell's news camera; not to mention other serious mitigating portal forensic science that further narrows down the features seen in Darnell. These factors all serve to eliminate most of the extreme possibilities David is alluding to, but not owning up to when it comes to validating them via these provable particulars.
If Prayer Man were hypothetically on the first step down, and technically even with Frazier, the height science would still disprove him being Oswald. The first step down is 7 inches. When you calculate the 6-7 inch height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man, and add that 7 inches for the step, it means Prayer Man would also be the same height as Frazier. Since Frazier is 6 foot tall that therefore also excludes Prayer Man as being Oswald by firm science.
From where I'm sitting Mr. Josephs has made every good faith attempt to help you comprehend matters beyond your scope, Mr. Doyle. Ditto for Mr. Cross, who has asked you in a fair and reasonable manner as well to simply take into account photographic dynamics in play. Rather than afford either of these gentlemen the courtesy to even consider their input you've done quite the opposite, Mr. Doyle. Any genuine evaluation should include an open and fair exchange, not a my way or the highway diatribe.
Now, moving along, Still reluctant to work in the full equation eh?
Of course, because to include all of the dynamics within the following photo would mean you would have to account for photographic evidence that debunks your "proof" (the thing about aluminum, Mr. Doyle, is it isn't set in stone ----->
*Credit Prayer Man website
Item (1) How about an honest accounting for the woman upon the 4th step, merely just halfway through her ascent upwards, already with her head aligned with Mr. Oswald's mid-section?
Item (2) How about an honest accounting of why even after we move her over to the right along the same plane, she has at least two human figures between her and Mr. Frazier?
Yet, no such blockage of human mass separates her from Mr. Oswald's mid-section. Why?, Mr. Doyle...Has it dawned upon you that perhaps the world is round after all?
You introduced the dynamics of measurements into this matter....Why are you so reluctant now to address the measurements contrary to your "proof"?
Offer at least an explanation...just don't sell us the idea that she's 7'4" tall or endowed with an extensively looong neck, Mr. Doyle, enabling her to crane upwards and over the remaining steps to navigate far enough away to reach Mr. Frazier's position way up there in the rear shadows. Try to refrain from addressing me, Mr. Josephs or Mr. Cross, etc. on rebuttal as much as simply addressing the measurements depicted in the photo, which speaks for itself. Well, How do you account for item 1 and Item 2, Mr. Doyle?
Alan Ford Wrote:Looking at this next photo image honestly ----->
You're displaying the patience of JOB, and I appreciate your attempts to engage Albert/Brian in an honest debate, but he's displayed over and over that he's incapable or unwilling of objectivity, or comprehension, or the willingness to consider anything other than his own agenda. Don't waste your breath/keystrokes.
Brian - his real name - won't win because we refuse to debate. It's pointless to debate someone that insists the sky is orange.
14-03-2016, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2016, 05:40 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Michael Cross Wrote:
Alan Ford Wrote:Looking at this next photo image honestly ----->
You're displaying the patience of JOB, and I appreciate your attempts to engage Albert/Brian in an honest debate, but he's displayed over and over that he's incapable or unwilling of objectivity, or comprehension, or the willingness to consider anything other than his own agenda. Don't waste your breath/keystrokes.
Brian - his real name - won't win because we refuse to debate. It's pointless to debate someone that insists the sky is orange.
There are clearly some ROKC proxies being allowed to infiltrate this site and offer direct ROKC content on the Deep Politics forum.
Your post is just pure opinionating Mr Cross. Your last post to me cited David Josephs' post as having refuted me. When I pointed out the ridiculous flaws in what David wrote, like claiming no distance measurements could be made in Darnell, you cut and ran and couldn't respond, yet you describe that as your side being patient with me. You're personalizing this and making it about me. If you read my posts they directly deal with detailed evidence none of you opposers offer any answer to short of these opinionating posts. You just self-servingly refer to yourselves as automatically winning (ROKC style), and use that as an excuse to not answer points you are clearly unable to answer.
I have made a very clear case above that Mr Josephs' moderator-approved excuse-making, that no height comparison could be made in Darnell because of potential perspective distortion from varying lenses, is not sound when considered in relation to Darnell's known lens, it's predictable setting for such a news filming, and the obvious perspective seen in Darnell that any good film expert could probably determine just by looking at it. In short, David is referencing things that don't exist and can be easily disproven and using them as an excuse to not answer some very good arguments while brow-beating and talking down to those with the obviously better arguments. That's outrageously intellectually dishonest and it is myself who is practicing the patience here. Just ask yourself, Mr Cross, why you chose this overly general attack against me instead of answering the very credible details I posted in my last post? Clearly you are offering the regressive material here that doesn't live up to the best of what has been shown. You are also living in your own imaginary world if you pretend not to notice that Drew also recognized the legitimacy of my evidence and added some trigonometry that furthered it.
You further this offense by crediting a rather demented pseudo-analysis by Ford that has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever and is just an obnoxious attempt to offer an obfuscating counter-analysis in order to avoid answering my good evidence. Apparently, those who pretend credibility have no problem with Alan's demented offering as long as it can be used to back their side. Also, neither of you bother to notice that while pointing out that David has refuted me Alan is making distance judgments in his nutty analysis (which contradicts what you referenced and approved in Josephs without either of you accounting for it). Alan doesn't respond to the fatal problems in his analysis, he just repeats it and claims you are failing to answer his 'evidence'.
Where we are Mr Cross is you falsely accused me of not honoring David Josephs' refuting of my argument. When I showed that David's claims were ridiculous, you ignored it. Now you are back making that same claim again without anything to support it.
Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered and you ignored showed. Drew also asked David to respond to this and David ignored it. One look at Darnell could see there is no disqualifying perspective distortion in the frame and that the image corresponds to a normal news camera lens setting for such a news filming. This could probably be easily found out but since, like yourself, Mr Josephs' intent is to preserve his egotistical position rather than seek evidence he is not going to honor or assist this simply obvious course. Also, I posted over and over that Unger showed a film clip that leaves no doubt Prayer Man is standing forward on the landing, as Unger agreed. MacRae's clip was even more apparent. This has been categorically ignored by those who describe themselves as practicing the patience.
You can't ignore our plainly-stated science and refer to David's disproven excuse and still maintain credibility. Simply crediting obviously bogus offerings as you are doing is also detrimental to credibility.
Time for an honest answer Mr Cross. The fact you would try to get away with offering that self-serving evidence evasion above in the face of the highly intelligent data and arguments it is responding to is ridiculous and lowers the quality of this board.
If you look at the photos I linked of Darnell's camera you can see his lens. Why did you offer this evasion above instead of discussing Darnell's camera equipment and how it can lead to a better understanding of the issue?
Drew showed that an independent mathematical determination could be made of Darnell's shot. This serves as an independent measure to which Darnell can be compared. You gentlemen totally ignored it. While calling for high science and claiming the photogrammetry was with you and we didn't understand it, as Drew showed it is actually with us and you obviously don't understand it. You have abandoned the previous level of rigor on this board and opened a direct door to ROKC-like trolling and evasion. It is obvious your only recourse is to protect this absurdity with your silly denial and uncredible ignoring of sound arguments that deserve answers. Your feet speak louder than your words Mr Cross and you have never once made any honest attempt to address what we're saying.
Quote:Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered
As explained before - while you were covering every orifice making sure nothing got in - eyeballing a frame or photo to determine distances cannot be done.
It truly is not our fault that you remain stubborn and stupid when the concepts have been explained and there is an entire internet available for you to learn how wrong you remain.
Will you now argue that the baby's head is larger than Lovelady when you still do not know the distances involved, the lens involved or anything about the properties of light, depth and perspective.
If you knew the size of the baby's head, you believe you can determine the size of Lovelady's head using your eyeballing process of comparisons and guessing?
Forgot this example as well?
How much taller is the can in the front, in the 24mm image, than the can in the back Doyle? at 70mm? 135mm? & 300mm?
Are they using 4 different sets of different sized cans or one set Doyle?
At 300mm, how far to the left and back is the can on the left compared to the front and middle can? at 24mm? at 70mm? 135mm?
If you only saw the 300mm image - would you then spend 20 pages arguing that the cans are all next to each other?
Is the can in the 24mm image farther away from the front can than in the 135mm image? if so, by how much?
And finally - simply because you know the size of the cans does not mean you can measure distance unless you employ one of a number of photogrammetry algorithms.
FYI - the can in the 24mm image is just under 2" in this image... how much shorter is the can in the back? and in the 135mm image?
answer the questions in bold... show off that big brain of yours Doyle and extrapolate your expertise at measuring distance from the PM images to the one above.
You get this right and maybe we make it into an after school special ::thumbsup::
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
You're just retreating to your same disproven photo analysis excuse and using it as an excuse to not answer the better arguments.
You have once again shown different photos that violate your very own claims and don't answer the specific things we are pointing out in Darnell (that you've so far avoided). When forced out into the open field of fair debate your claims don't stand up well.
Again: You can see the photos of Darnell and his camera that I linked. Sound analysis and an honest pursuit of the facts would determine what exactly Darnell's lens type was and what setting it was on? This is not as difficult or uncertain as you would want us to believe and a fair determination could be made just by looking at the Darnell photo, which more than clearly shows a normal lens setting and accurate representation of objects and their distances. Mr Josephs, Jimmy Darnell would not shoot a news shot at an extreme lens setting. What you are plainly seeing there is a normal news shot lens setting and its ensuing image. This could be easily found out.
We have already explained why Drew's trigonometry (that you ignored) was a credible standard by which to calibrate that which is seen in Darnell. If you need this explained to you, that trigonometry serves as mathematical representation of the objects and structures in Darnell as they stand in reality. As Drew requested you to answer and you ignored, a simple comparison of what you see in Darnell to this math can reasonably jibe what you are seeing with reality. Since all the subjects that we already know the distances for in Roberdeaux line up correctly what this tells you is there is no such exaggerated perspective distortion in Darnell. We have established a reasonable understanding that objects actually can be directly compared in Darnell and there is no lens-caused disqualifying perspective distortion, as you are incorrectly claiming.
If we did what those who were seeking the facts instead of the excuses would do, we would hunt down the precise lens Darnell used and its setting. We could then make reasonable conclusions from it and apply them to the height argument.
Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.
For the record, when I view the Darnell film/still of the TSBD doorway area, I don't see anyone. All I see are white, varying shades of gray, and black images that in some cases somewhat resemble known and/or thought to be occupants of the doorway area at or about 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63.
[size=12]I have read and/or heard testimony regarding the presence of said occupants, and that testimony indicates who those images may resemble. But, I have never read or heard any testimony indicating the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald. The image I, among others, refer to as PrayerPerson on the left/west side of the doorway area, is thought by some to be LHO. However, if and when a positive identification of the PP image is made, I would not at all be surprised to find out PP is a female, holding a purse and possibly a drink of some kind. Also, thanks to an observation made by a well respected researcher, I believe the facial area of the image may be looking somewhat right, instead of left, as I first thought. And, according to testimony, there is a female occupant of the area that I have yet to see/hear positively identified among said images. Mainly though, I just do not see how the identity of the PP image has any effect on the probable innocence, or thought guilt for that matter, of LHO in the assassination of JFK. JMO. FWIW.
[/SIZE]
14-03-2016, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016, 01:13 AM by David Josephs.)
Quote:Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.
Arthur Canon Brian Albert Doyle or whoever the $%@#$ you claim you are for today's posts...
Your intellectual dishonesty makes McAdams and Myers look like saints.
Your inability to see beyond your own inability to grasp these concepts remains laughable.
Your ongoing argument against the laws of nature betrays your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a POV that precludes independent thought of any kind
Your insistence that others haven't fooled you into believing you and they can make out detail is a miniscule area of a 3.8mm x 4.5mm film frame proves you'll buy most anything as long as you don't need to understand it.
In answering the questions I posed about that can image Doyle, you may find out how wrong you are about everything you've posted.
Then again - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know. And you surely don't want to learn about this.
btw - Duncan admitted it was a joke in a reply to me which is no longer in the thread...
Greg P got it...:
Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:51 PM Yeah... you got me Duncan. Should have seen that this was a "joke" thread.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Quote:Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.
Arthur Canon Brian Albert Doyle or whoever the $%@#$ you claim you are for today's posts...
Your intellectual dishonesty makes McAdams and Myers look like saints.
Your inability to see beyond your own inability to grasp these concepts remains laughable.
Your ongoing argument against the laws of nature betrays your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a POV that precludes independent thought of any kind
Your insistence that others haven't fooled you into believing you and they can make out detail is a miniscule area of a 3.8mm x 4.5mm film frame proves you'll buy most anything as long as you don't need to understand it.
In answering the questions I posed about that can image Doyle, you may find out how wrong you are about everything you've posted.
Then again - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know. And you surely don't want to learn about this.
btw - Duncan admitted it was a joke in a reply to me which is no longer in the thread...
Greg P got it...:
Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:51 PM Yeah... you got me Duncan. Should have seen that this was a "joke" thread.
Yes David. Again you're spot on. I can't for the life of me understand why this disinfo is allowed to continue.
